- Council Asks that Libraries Remain Open
- Good news! City Council stands up to the mayor, says "the public have questions!"
- Be There For Health Care Today at City Hall at noon
- City Paper on the effects of the YPP poll and other online organizing on budget cuts
- Another local library group organizes
- More Cute Kids Who Want Their Library to Stay Open
- Talk solutions with Maria Quinones-Sanchez @ PFC Meetup tonight
- Talking Out of Both Sides on Libraries
- Vince Fumo, the Charmer
- SCI Camp Hill Update—Call for Action, Increased Monitoring, Constant Vigilance
Update on PA 'Marriage Amendment'; Straight Unmarrieds at Risk Too
Submitted by benPA on Tue, 06/13/2006 - 6:27pm.
It's only fair to mention that the Senate Judiciary Committee did strip out the worst part of the proposed constitutional amendment (H.B. 2381) today (the part banning civil unions and interfering with a wide range of legal protections). BUT no one knows what will happen in the full Senate.
Keep in mind that the House version would affect unmarried straight people too. Here's one example: It could result in Terri Schiavo cases right here in PA -- you saw how bad the Schiavo case got, and Michael Schiavo was clearly married to Terri. Imagine the mess when a partner has a power of attorney, but there's a "no legal union" or "no legal status" amendment to muck things up...
More below...
From today's Inquirer:
If the constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage is successful, it would alter the state's legal landscape and create a chilling effect - as it has in several of the 20 other states that have passed similar bans - on a whole range of existing rights and benefits, from adoption and foster care to pensions and wills, say legal experts.
"This amendment will prohibit recognition of any relationship for any purpose for unmarried people," said Stacey Sobel, executive director of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Philadelphia. "It will prevent partners from taking care of each other when they are ill and prevent some couples from receiving benefits if one of them dies."
At the very least, Montgomery County solicitor Michael D. Marino warned in a letter to a local representative, the proposal could lead to "costly and wasteful litigation" against the county, which provides health and dental benefits to domestic partners.
In the long term, I hope Rep. Mark Cohen is right in what he said recently about support for civil unions in PA. Thank you, Rep. Cohen, for standing up against this amendment. Rep. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, also deserves thanks for doing the same, as does Sen. Connie Williams, D-Montgomery/Delaware, who issued a statement against the amendment almost as soon as the House sent it over to the Senate.
In the short term, I hope you'll call your state senator to oppose this amendment (H.B. 2381)and urge your friends to do the same. The Center for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Philadelphia has more information on where to call and what to say.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Really important
If the Senate passes a different version, it means one way or another, there is inevitably going to be another vote in the House, which could keep slowing this down. If this does not pass this session, and can not then be a ballot question for 2008, it will not be touched again, since it is all a Rove type ploy to help push GOP turnout on the backs of GLBT residents.
What the Hell!
Yes, I'm glad that the Judiciary Committee Democrats (with the blessing of the committee's Republicans) removed civil unions and domestic partnerships from the proposed marriage ban; but why did every single Democrat in the end vote to amend the state constitution?
Not one Democrat, including Philadelphia's Michael Stack (717-787-9608), voted against turning 8% of Pennsylvania's population into second class citizens.
Senate Move Shows Backing for Civil Unions, Domestic Partnership
More and more, legislators of parties are recognizing that gay and lesbian people need various legal protections for their relationships.
Obviously, the best move for the gay community would be if the Senate failed to pass any constitutional amendment; this would kill the issue until the 2009-2010 legislative session at the earliest.
But if the Senate backs the Judiciary Committee and passes the committee version, this would be a limited positive step under which, if the House approved, the voters would only be able to vote to ban something which is already illegal under Pennsylvania law.
The implicit support for civil unions/domestic partnership legislation that the Judiciary Committee vote represents, coupled with the roughly one-half of the House casting at least one gay-friendly vote during the amendment process,sends a clear message that the time for activism on this subject is at hand.
Support should only be greater in the next legislative session, when numerous legislators of both parties elected in the Reagan era will be retiring. The younger legislators of both parties who will generally replace them are likely, as a group, to be far more helpful in the area of equal rights than those who are leaving.